ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2019
Reliability of a new loaded rolling wheel system for measuring spinal stiffness in asymptomatic participants.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Static palpation ain't easy: Evaluating palpation precision using a topographical map of the lumbar spine as a reference.PloS one · 2024Trial
- Optimization of Spinal Manipulative Therapy Protocols: A Factorial Randomized Trial Within a Multiphase Optimization Framework.The journal of pain · 2021Trial
- Spinal manipulation and modulation of pain sensitivity in persistent low back pain: a secondary cluster analysis of a randomized trial.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2021Trial
- Changes in pain sensitivity and spinal stiffness in relation to responder status following spinal manipulative therapy in chronic low Back pain: a secondary explorative analysis of a randomized trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Trial
- The effect on clinical outcomes when targeting spinal manipulation at stiffness or pain sensitivity: a randomized trial.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- Article
- A cross-sectional analysis of persistent low back pain, using correlations between lumbar stiffness, pressure pain threshold, and heat pain threshold.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2021Article
- A consensus approach toward the standardization of spinal stiffness measurement using a loaded rolling wheel device: results of a Delphi study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- The bench-top accuracy of the VerteTrack spinal stiffness assessment device.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2020Article
- Article
- Predicting who responds to spinal manipulative therapy using a short-time frame methodology: Results from a 238-participant study.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFew, if any, patient reported symptoms have been shown to be related to objective measures of spine function. Recently, patient-reported measures of disability following spinal manipulative therapy have been associated with an immediate decrease in spinal stiffness obtained by instrumented L3 indentation. Given this novel relation, we anticipate that stiffness measures obtained from locations in addition to L3 may yield valuable information. As such, our research team has developed a new technique to acquire stiffness data continuously over an entire spinal region. The reliability of stiffness measurements obtained by this new technique has yet to be quantified.
methodsContinuous stiffness testing employs a weighted roller that moves uninterrupted over the spine while measuring the resulting spinal deflection along a subject-specific, laser-defined trajectory. A volunteer sample of asymptomatic participants were assessed in 2 sessions occurring 1 to 4 days apart, with each session scheduled at the same time of day. Each session consisted of 3 trials each beginning at a baseline of ~ 17 N then progressing to a maximally tolerable load as defined from pre-test familiarization trials (~ 61, 72 or 83 N). Reliability was evaluated with the intraclass correlation coefficient, the standard error of measurement and Bland & Altman analysis.
resultsA total of 17 asymptomatic participants (mean age 29.2 +/- 6 years, 53% female) took part in the study. Overall, the within and between-session reliability of lumbar spine stiffness measures at the maximal tolerable load was excellent ranging from 0.95-1.00 and good to excellent ranging from 0.82-0.93, respectively. Trial averaging was found to reduce standard error of measurement by a mean of 35.2% over all measurement conditions compared to a single trial. Bland and Altman plots for agreement in lumbar spine stiffness measurements varied from - 0.3 +/- 1.2 at unloaded condition to - 0.2 +/- 1.2 at loaded condition. Data from two participants were removed due to the development of back pain between two sessions.
conclusionThis study introduced a new technique for measuring spinal stiffness over an entire spinal region in asymptomatic human participants. The new technique produced reliable measurements quantifying the load-displacement values for within-session and between-session assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.